Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

This is (again) an argument that rolling a dice or flipping a coin is free of luck. Both activities have no external factors, both outcomes are derived from one's own actions, a machine can be built that constantly flips heads/rolls a one, etc.

This is why the position that there is no luck in chess hinges on either:
a. there being no luck anywhere
b. a religious conviction stemming from the unquestionable and unfalsifiable utterances of unknown priestly class (i.e. "trust me bro")

As proof (that the "no luck" positions hinges on either a or b above), try to give an objective explanation why the outcome of a dice contains luck (as a reminder, versions of "come on, it's common sense" are not explanations and are inherently subjective).

Coin flip isn't skill based since humans don't possess ability to affect a coin flip in a significant way. Stop insisting on this same non relevant point.

This 168 page (thus far) thread seems to be wrestling with what "chess" is exactly. The luck purveyors focus on human factors in the outcome achieved, the no-luck purveyors focus on the set of all games with perfect information which like tic-tac-toe, chess is a member. What is the next best move in any position is pure computation and deterministic, however intractable that might be (due to the size of the game tree). So when you say "chess" has luck or not, the answer to the question hinges on what you define as "chess". Is it the rules governing the transformation of the data structure (pieces on the board) or is it the entirety of what goes into outcomes that depend on factors relating to the players themselves? That will never be resolved until there is agreement on what "chess" is in the question.

I don't think there should be any argument about what chess is as a concept. Chess is a set of technical game rules. Chess can be presented on the board, online or just as an immaterial concept. It can be interacted with by humans, engines, whatever is capable of moving the pieces or processing notations. It doesn't need human, therefore human as a variable isn't a part of the concept of chess.

It's just a mistake made by some participants in the discussion.

yes

Hogwash. Chess is a contest between two opponents, each trying to checkmate the other before they are checkmated themselves. Were it just "an immaterial concept", a problem to be solved, it would hold no interest for 99.999999% of those who play the game and would have been entirely forgotten more than 1000 years ago. "Chess is, above all, a fight", as Lasker pointed out. The problem-solving aspect of the game makes chess competition more interesting to its adherents, but that is NOT the totality of its allure.

The ultimate goal is to defeat the opponent. ("I like to see them squirm"--Fischer.) While this is normally the result of superior skill (making fewer or less serious mistakes) on rare occasions the victor is determined by computer disconnections, heart attacks at the board, or other events that have NO relation to the skills displayed by the victor. That's luck.

Hence my point, since I said "by the players themselves--these could be computer players since I left that unconstrained. The disagreement isn't so much about the reasoning as much as it is about defining terms. You argue from the conceptual level, they argue from the mechanistic level. They may understand the concept of the rule set, but don't accept it as what "chess" is on a practical level, since it is the mechanisms by which outcomes are realized is where they would say luck plays a role (even in computer competitions albeit very rarely, e.g. cosmic ray flipping a bit or two in ram, causing a non-fatal branch in a search algorithm, or misconfiguration not caught on one of the machines etc.). I think the luck advocates understand that mathematically, there is at each point (think Nalimov tables) the only correct move(s) that win, lose or draw given any reply possible in each position (just like tic-tac-toe), but don't accept that as what "chess" is in the OP. I suspect that chess, like checkers is a draw so games can only be lost due to incorrect play. Given the size of the game tree, it is an intractable problem to compute perfect play at all stages at all time controls (except where tablebases have been calculated), that's where other factors extrinsic to the rules come into play that unarguably influence the outcome, be it skill, algorithms, emotion, quantum effects, or myriad other factors known and unknown. If the participants can't agree on terms, this discussion cannot resolve except by mutual exhaustion or abandonment.

If you discuss human factors as luck in chess, you will have to consider cardiac arrest and other organ disfunctions as luck in chess. I think that's a stupid conversation to have.

What is less stupid is chess as a concept as I described it - Do the rules allow for luck? This is where discussion is possible. I say the rules don't allow for luck since ability, whether it be human or engine does lead to an optimal outcome.

Nicely said. This question will never be resolved, as has been proven in this thread and several others here which always reduce to the same impasse. That begin said, where I choose to tip the scales is at the game design level, and I prefer the more precise definition of luck in games. Things get mucked up when you add human imperfections to...well, anything. Since chess does not require humans, it's fine to drop them from the equation.

If human players were not involved in chess it would not exist.

That's fair. The human factor interacting with chess we can all agree, does produce luck, whether we agree they're part of chess or not.

My argument is that chess within it's core rules and fundamentals allows chance to be part of the game. This is because it forces the player, human or anything else, to make a choice from a laid out set of options. This allows one to achieve optimal outcome without ability - and by luck.

Saying chess has no luck is like saying the earth is flat.
But certain people in the discussion keep trying to impose a red herring.
In tennis - replays can determine whether the ball actually landed outside the line.
The rules of tennis are quite clear about the ball bouncing twice and so on.
Does this mean tennis has no luck?
Tennis has 'a set of game rules'.
So does golf.
If the ball doesn't go in the cup you haven't completed the hole.
----------------------------
the idea that chess having rules means it cannot have good and bad fortunes is like saying 'Well water is wet so that means Europe does not exist'
Its ridiculous.
Why would people try for such red herrings?
Because they can.
They can try. And they'll be wrong every time.
Not only does chess have good and bad luck - but such processes are in action in every single game.
Constantly. Since day 1 of chess and any other game or activity with subjective participants.
Yeah I know - 'rules'. So what?
Lots of games have rules.
Checkers has luck too. There's even claims that its 'weakly solved' and is a draw with optimal play by both sides. (no not chess - checkers).
But so what? A car can beat humans in a one mile race every time. That's 'solved'. It doesn't mean there aren't luck factors in a foot race.
Including foot races with everyone in the race a contender.
---------------------------
there's another reason some try to claim chess has no luck.
There's an opportunity to introduce the 'colorful'.
In a mile footrace between contending opponents - hey somebody could have bad luck because a battery-powered pterodactyl was flown in front of him and messed up his stride.
You don't need that colorful stuff to know there's good and bad luck in every single game of chess.
------------------
What about mismatches?
A 2700 rated GM plays a 1400 rated D player. Using a clock.
On equal terms. No handicaps or odds or spotting material.
Can there be 'luck' there?
Can the 1400 ever win such a contest?
The GM would win very very close to 100% of such games.
Such games are rare to happen anyway but even there they have elements of good and bad luck.
That's where the D player might need that battery powered pterodactyl or Stegosaurus to mess with the GM.
Or maybe the GM's heart pacemaker malfunctions.
--------------------------------
Many would say: the GM is too skillful there - he can never 'need luck there' because the D player is never going to outplay him.
Then they'd argue - 'he'll never need luck so there isn't any'
Doesn't follow.
If something does interfere with him (like a sudden migraine headache attack and he blunders badly early in the game then he'll 'need luck' for the D player to fail to exploit a bad blunder.
Its not an 'argument'. Its a fact.

That was true, but no longer.

the computers still need programmers.
If two self-driving cars race each other does that mean other car races with human drivers don't exist?
Obviously not.
Rocks fall down opposite sides of a valley - and two equal rocks strike each other. Neither rock destroys the other.
Does that mean that 'luck' no longer exists in the universe?
Its now 'wiped out' everywhere?
-----------------------------------------
Trying to connect an irrelevancy to a situation it doesn't apply to in a context.
That's always going to happen.
Are there common instances of that?
Everyday instances? Probably. But they'd be so crazy ...
'Honey I got that raise today! Its on the paycheck!'
'That's good Dear. That means we should go paperless. Right?'
Husband scratches his head - but he'd already earlier spotted the empty sherry bottle over on the counter.
'Yes Wilma. I'll take care of that now.'

He said players, Player. That was a lot of verbiage to base on a misunderstanding.

No 'misunderstanding'
My post addressed your reply.
And other things.

That's not true even gambling involves skill chess involves skill but that doesn't mean you can't get lucky usually the more skilled you are the more you also capitalize on luck

BC is correct again.
Those who think they have to reject luck in chess because they misguidedly want to believe its 100% skill which is abjectly wrong - constantly resort to the same tactic which is to keep making various strawman arguments where the strawman isn't relevant or is separate from the point and in some cases even the strawman itself isn't valid.
Is it interesting that they keep doing that and can't address the main point?
Illogical behaviour is often interesting.

What would motivate people to reject 'luck in chess'?
Perhaps concern that it would make them mentally lazy.
With chess players wanting to get as far away as possible from lottery/slot machine mentality.
Point: Just because chess has luck doesn't mean you have to 'think luck' when you're playing.
------------------------------
And skilled poker players know that if they keep on depending on the 3 community cards (the flop) coming out in their favor then they're going to be losing. You have to play the player And the cards (in the movies they say play the man Not the cards ... but you have to play both for good play)
In good poker strong players Shark weaker players but the weaker player can still get lucky and that's something chess players hate.
Like when an amateur with a weird name won a gigantic poker prize.
Chris Moneymaker.
Him winning caused a tremendous increase of interest in the game.
And there was Darvin Moon too. Died recently.
-------------------------
Its notable that Dan Harrington was a good chess player and of course there's GM Walter Browne a good poker player. And IM Ylon Schwartz finished fourth in the World Series of Poker. Won millions.
I used to see him hustling in Washington Square Park.
Point: one doesn't have to be afraid of luck being in something.

The only thing that isn't luck in chess is what you control if you could mind control your opponents sure then chess wouldn't have luck the game itself isn't based of luck that doesn't mean interactions with other humans don't get lucky